 
AlexNYC
join:2001-06-02
Edwards, CO
1 edit | Caps are just an excuse. Caps are just an excuse not to make the necessary investments in infrastructure. 5GB would be funny if it was not so tragic. | |
|  | 
Phil
Rojo Sol
Premium
join:2001-06-11
Camarillo, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Re: Caps are just an excuse. That's one reason. Another reason, more so for cable companies, is controlling content on their network. Why would I ever use Time Warner's On Demand service when I can use my Netflix account to watch movies any time on my desktop, laptop or home theater (setting aside movie availability)? | |
| | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| i wouldn't mind the caps and throttling if they proved 2 things: our (isp's) network is nearing complete utilization -> throttling/capping is necessary to ensure everyone can have a responsive connection, and we have plans to upgrade our network and are actively doing so as permits (if any are needed) are acquired. i'd over course expect to see proof from the company itself and from 3rd party groups when possible. | |
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by AlexNYC  :Caps are just an excuse not to make the necessary investments in infrastructure. 5GB would be funny if it was not so tragic. they admit it, right in the article:
The growth of traffic means the company has to invest millions in its network and infrastructure, threatening its profitability, according to the e-mail.
Company CEO: OMG! We can't be spending money on infrastructure upgrades, I need a new yacht! | |
| 
sousademiami
join:2003-02-04
Miami, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| From the "Talking Points:" "The industry lobbyists psychologically co-opt at least some people into fighting against their own best interests. By suggesting someone is getting something that you are paying for, and creating stereotypes of “bandwidth hogs” and people getting something you don’t is part of their propaganda agenda."
This really gets me, so many people, posters on this site included, are buying into this one. How anyone out there thinks these people would ever, under any circumstances, LOWER prices baffles me.
--
OASAASLLS | |
| bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK
| Only one way to fix this. Government regulations. Everybody that cries about too much government regulation does not understand how an economy with no competition works. And there is no competition in the broadband market place.
If you want an open Internet then it is going to require the government to regulate the industry. If you don't want the government to regulate than shut up and live with the caps.
This is a very simple issue. | |
| | HackedServer
join:2008-07-12
Ossineke, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: Only one way to fix this. We need the government to step in and take control. Although it isn't how we normally do things, I think the world has proven that this is the better way. All the fastest countries have the government controlling the Internet. And its not always to the point where they set the price and everything, its just making rules that encourage more competition and upgrades. | |
| | | 
kj4987453kj4h435
@omcastbusiness.net
| Re: Only one way to fix this. How about no government regulation and no right of ways. I could get fiber ran to my healthcare clinic from a cable provider and would pay handsomely to do so but no, right of ways exist with local city coucil. Government regulation is the killer of buisness. People think that america is a free market but in reality it is no where near even close to being so. FCC, SEC, FDA, FTC, so on and so forth, government is regulating everything to death, all these regulations and taxes add up to serious expenses for buisnesses that add to your bill. Free market my butt, tell that to the right of way city governments that regulate your internet connection based upon who they say can come to your premise. Once high speed (20+mbps)wireless comes to fruition, these wireline providers are screwed and so be it, I will be glad. No more right of ways. | |
| | | | 
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | Re: Only one way to fix this. Try posting on something other than a anonymous acct with a jibberish name if you want any credence lent to your position. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: Only one way to fix this. Stop worrying about how he posted and simply respond to his post with something to reply with. As has been said in the past, EVERYONE is anonymous here. Would it make a difference if he used that same name, only registered?
Sorry to say, he had MUCH more to say than you did. | |
| | | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
1 edit | Re: Only one way to fix this. Course, if it was truly a free market, he wouldn't be able to get service anyway, either, as what he needs wouldn't be economically feasible. | |
| | | | bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK
| Hi-speed wireless is dieing everywhere. You live in a dream world.
Do you know why we have the greatest hiway system in the world? Your government provides it for you.
While government may not be the answer in a competitive market, broadband is not a competitive market. This is straight out of economics 101. Unregulated markets ONLY work where there is a perfect economy. And perfect economies do not exist.
Dream on if you think there is ever going to be a wireless market. Wireline providers are not going to allow it. They own the backbone.
Categorically stating government regulations kill business is about as naive as you can get. It would be wonderful if we did not have to have them but it is not reality.
And of gourse seeing this post come from a heath care clinic, the biggest rip off of consumers that ever was, I can see your disdain of regulations. | |
| | 
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey | The answer is not for mama to come and save you, from gasps lack of broadband. Its for government to inspirer competition and with competition comes more and more. If government intervened in making TV we would never have seen HDTV. | |
| | | 
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC | Re: Only one way to fix this. So far their efforts at encouraging broadband compition has really paid off. Why change what's obviously working... | |
| | | | | | | bjbrock
join:2002-10-28
Mcalester, OK | How do you think the government inspires competition. Through regulation. | |
| HackedServer
join:2008-07-12
Ossineke, MI
·Charter Pipeline
| Reasonable Although I am against caps and capping and throttling, I do see how in some scenarios they would be good. But the problem is that we aren't in those scenarios. Maybe if the ISP had the best set up they could get, and Heavy Users were slowing down the Interent for everyone, then I could see it. But since they are still useing out dated technology, and not every trying to upgrade, I don't see the need to cap or throttle.
Once we hit a road block and can't make it faster, then you can start to limit people. But please, make it a reasonable limit. 5gb a month and 300mb a day are just ridiculous. | |
| AstroBoy
join:2008-08-08
Parkville, MD
| We live with usage fees on almost everything else, why not? We live with usage fees on almost everything else, why not the Internet?
Most cell phone plans have caps (included minutes) and usage fees after that.
Long distance calls are billed per usage.
Pay per view.
Netflix n DVDs at a time.
Water, electricity, gas, oil.
Why can's they be unlimited? Or why can they be limited and Internet not?
Just for the record, I don't want limits! 
But if they put limits on Internet usage, the base plan should be really cheap! | |
| |
sousademiami
join:2003-02-04
Miami, FL | Re: We live with usage fees on almost everything else, why not? Yeah, just like cell phone service, it's so cheap!!!!
--
OASAASLLS | |
| | | AstroBoy
join:2008-08-08
Parkville, MD
| Re: We live with usage fees on almost everything else, why not? said by sousademiami :Yeah, just like cell phone service, it's so cheap!!!! I was thing more like electricity. If you have the service but don't use any you pay less than $10 per month (I think).
The same for natural gas.
Also, my cell phone only costs me $20 every 3 months! But I pay for usage, and the $20 gives me $20 worth of usage. I don't talk much! | |
| | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: We live with usage fees on almost everything else, why not? said by AstroBoy :said by sousademiami :Yeah, just like cell phone service, it's so cheap!!!! I was thing more like electricity. If you have the service but don't use any you pay less than $10 per month (I think). The same for natural gas. Also, my cell phone only costs me $20 every 3 months! But I pay for usage, and the $20 gives me $20 worth of usage. I don't talk much! Well it costs you if you DON'T use it too[minutes expire(my pet peeve with prepaids)]
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: We live with usage fees on almost everything else, why not? it doesn't bother me that they charge you for not using the service.. why shouldn't they?
The cell companies still have to maintain your number.. they still have to have the network to handle your call if and when you decide to make a call. I mean, what happened if 5,000 people in a small area had a prepaid phone, never used it, new people paid in, and then EVERYONE decided to use that service? I do agree that you can't buy a prepaid card and sit on that card and use in over, say, a year or so.. they'd never be able to remain solvent on that line of business with out getting it from the rest of us who pay a monthly bill. | |
| | | |
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by AstroBoy :if they put limits on Internet usage, the base plan should be really cheap! like electricity. $10 base fee plus usage. NOT this $50 plus an extremely low cap to maximize profits bullshit!
course this would turn isps favorite subs[emailing grannies] into non fav low revenue generators.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
| 
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA
1 edit | Piracy They reporter should have investigated into the topic to see how much it is effecting the overall scheme of things. | |
| |
sousademiami
join:2003-02-04
Miami, FL
·Comcast
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Piracy said by ninjatutle :They reporter should have investigated into the topic to see how much it is effecting the overall skeem of things. Scheme, it's scheme.
--
OASAASLLS | |
| | |
ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | Re: Piracy Scheme scheme. Thanks, I was trying to find the correct spelling 
I never did pass the 5th grade  | |
| | | | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD | yes indeed, the crap they blather about "piracy" is a scheme (regardless of how it's spelled). | |
|
Drvyyne
@prkcorp.com | Caps will make me choose... between either Cable TV or getting all of my content from the Internet. I refuse to let my ISP double-dip me! | |
|
AnonName
@toast.net
| Paying for Advertisements I look at how much of each web page is now an advertisement. Anywhere between 5 and 95%. And you never know what you're getting until you're already there. If they want to initialize usage caps, then they need to get rid of the ads, or have them not count towards usage. I have NO desire to pay to see advertisements. The reason I have to put up with the ads in the first place is to 'cut costs' in order to make content available. From my point of view, most ads just slow the download time of web pages, bringing the internet to a crawl in many cases. I remember when the internet was 'advertisement free', and what a lovely world it was. Don't get me wrong, I don't entirely mind some ads. Without them, CBS probably wouldn't be able to make many of their shows viewable online for free, for example. But to make me PAY to see ads, especially when many web pages are 50% or more advertisements that I have no control over... I really don't think it's fair, no fairer than the state coming after me for ~$12,000 in back property taxes on a $1,000 house trailer I sold 15 years ago. Who really owns that $1,000 trailer, that someone must pay the government ~$12,000 for the right to have 'owned' it for 15 years? | |
| |
See 10 replies to this post | |
john262
join:2003-09-26
Elko, NV
 ·Wireless Beehive
| Wow, Drudge has a link to this story on his web site. This is fantastic. Now millions of people will be aware of this issue. I bet they're sweating over at Frontier about now.
BTW, I'm happy to report that I have found another broadband provider that is much better than Frontier here in Elko, Nevada. It's cheaper and it's faster. So I canceled Frontier and other Frontier users in Elko should consider doing the same. | |
| amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| Insane Such a low cap is just insane (5GB).
Now that I finally have a new modem that works like it should, I've been seeing faster speeds again (9/1 plan w/Cox, get at least that on average ).
Guess what that means? It means that I USE my internet connection a bit more. To most people, using the internet is done without much (if ANY) thought as to how much data they transfer in a month.
January '08 on my NetMeter shows that I used very close to 40GB total. That was solely from lots of Netflix, a few demos, and random surfing. I consider myself "average" and don't download things 24x7 or anything like that. About a month or two after that, my old modem went nuts and just kept getting worse.....
What's Cox' cap, 40GB? And they really don't care if you're a little over that here and there, right? TW does 250 right? Either of those is still FAR more reasonable than this 5GB nonsense. 40 is still a little low, but that's probably why Cox doesn't seem to be so forceful unless the subscriber is a total hog.
Prices seem outrageous for these overages too, I mean, my hosting provider gives me a ton of space AND bandwidth per month for a very reasonable rate. Why should an ISP think they can get away with charging so much more?
Keep the regular internet prices flat rate. This notion of capping and overages is poorly thought out, couldn't possibly be executed well, and would upset far more people than they think.
If Jane and Joe internet users can't simply use their connection reasonably, there is a problem. If me, ok, maybe slightly above average internet user can't use my connection reasonably either, what's the point of getting a fast connection? | |
|
Swinky
@insightbb.com | This potentially will affect more than end users What about the companies that make MMOs? People are going to cancel their accounts to WoW if they're worried about going over the limit. Same for X-Box Live. Maybe Blizzard and Microsoft would want to have a word with these ISPs... | |
| | 
Dryvlyne
Far Beyond Driven
Premium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH | Re: This potentially will affect more than end users Are you kidding? WoW players and the like will pay up, those people are like crack addicts! | |
| | 
ssj4android
Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI
| Is Microsoft pressuring these ISPs? They really should be, seeing as how they stand to lose sales. They're selling movies through Xbox Live (well, at least one) that are bigger than the 5GB cap allowed my these ISPs. Perhaps Microsoft and Google could sue ISPs having their own video service for antitrust? | |
| Dampier
join:2003-03-23
Rochester, NY
| StopTheCap Invites You to Join the Fight We have already managed to draw a lot of attention to the cap issue, particularly at Frontier. We're now getting organized to pursue the next level of this fight - getting politicians involved.
Consumers upset about the usage cap need to come together in a unified effort to fight this. Getting a lot of negative attention on this issue before caps are widespread will defeat them far easier than fighting something already in place.
If you want on the temporary mailing list to let you know when you can formally register on the site, just visit »www.stopthecap.com and leave a message (click Contact).
Frontier has been forced to hold back because of the outcry by customers upset about the cap, so you guys ARE making an impact. We also have a shot with Time Warner, and in September we're going to be focusing a lot on them before the Beaumont "test" becomes the nation's reality.
We're also going to build a list of competing ISPs in different areas that do not have usage caps, and help people find alternatives to capped ISPs as long as we can find them.
Be sure to also read our Talking Points. A number of people have already been suckered into the industry position that broadband Internet is somehow equivalent to mobile phones or electricity. Frankly, it's really not. With broadband wholesale costs declining, not increasing, your service should not be capped, and should actually be declining in price.
And for those that want a-la-carte, we have no objection to that concept as long as the existing flat rate plans remain in place. But no ISP wants to do that. Instead, they propose charging you up to $10.80 per gigabyte for the first five gigabytes, and then at least $1 for each additional gigabyte. What does it really cost them? Less than 10 cents. If you think paying up to $50 a month for five gigabytes and $1 for each additional gigabyte is fair pricing, you are being suckered.
A nationwide blanket of usage caps will dramatically impact on what you can actually do online. Gone will be most streaming video services, as investment dries up because of consumer resistance to high bandwidth applications. Online backup services will be devastated. No broadband delivery of movies or exceptionally high quality music. What venture capitalist will finance the web applications of the future that require bandwidth when consumers face caps as low as 5GB per month.
We might as well turn Gopher back on and stick to that.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE of a bandwidth crisis in the USA. Just a industry-funded lobbying effort with well-connected businesses who have a dog in the fight claiming there is. We've challenged any ISP to provide independent evidence of a bandwidth crisis. Every last one refuses to provide any independently verified evidence of their claims because it is a "trade secret." We got some internal documents ourselves that proved our position on the matter. This is an effort to increase shareholder value, profits, and cut infrastructure costs because of a difficult economy and excessively competitive video and telephony marketplace. Broadband will make up the difference by charging you more for less.
And in most cities, there are just two providers. Competition cannot easily exist in this industry because the delivery systems are not easily constructed. Where competition itself is restricted, a de facto duopoly becomes established and customers will pay, pay, and pay some more.
Raising a chorus of protest now helps assure broadband usage caps could easily go the way of Comcast's torrent throttling. | |
| | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: StopTheCap Invites You to Join the Fight said by Dampier :We have already managed to draw a lot of attention to the cap issue, particularly at Frontier. We're now getting organized to pursue the next level of this fight - getting politicians involved. Consumers upset about the usage cap need to come together in a unified effort to fight this. Are you kidding with this? This isn't a fight.. this isn't organizing.. this isn't anything. It's a bunch of people, who feel entitled to everything, coming here to bitch, moan, and piss about having to pay for something they want to use so much of.
This isn't organizing any kind of fight. A pissy message posted on a message board isn't a unified effort. What is, is an organized letter writing campaign, it's going to your reps office.. it's marching and bringing people out to the street.. it's organizing events and calling media attention..
.. this, no.. it's a bunch of people bitching on line - no matter how you try to spin it.
If you or anyone here thinks this is an organized effort, then you've never had to fight to change anything before in your life. | |
| | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: StopTheCap Invites You to Join the Fight You are more than welcome to step up and lead, or quit your own bitching and moaning.
cw | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: StopTheCap Invites You to Join the Fight said by wentlanc :You are more than welcome to step up and lead, or quit your own bitching and moaning. cw It's not my fight.. personally, I don't see a fight to be had.. what I see, as you said, is a bunch of people bitching and moaning..
I'd love Penn and Teller to do an episode about BBR.. it would be hilarious.
And for the record.. he put it out there, it's open for comment.. I did. Get over it. | |
|
twistedpair2
@verizon.net | caps the broadband companies realized they are passing up money by not having caps. now they can meter services and charge more. greed. pure greed. to hell with them all. | |
|
HandiMan198
@bellsouth.net
| Pay-Per-Gig Just wondering: How much of the bandwidth that I DO pay for is being used to FORCE DOWN MY COMPUTER'S THROAT advertisements, SPAM, and god-knows-what else? How about we start demanding REFUNDS based on how much it costs us in extra software and general loss of performance? I would probably hit those usage caps just in the maintenance updates to Windows, Media Player, iTunes, MS Office, Norton, Quick Time, etc., etc., etc. Who is going to pay for my hijacked bandwidth, or should we consider a legal (i.e. lawsuit) remedy? | |
|
AnonName
@toast.net
| Paying for Ads Since web pages are filled with ads these days, and since you never know what you're getting from any particular page until you get there (unless it's a previously visited page), and since many/most web pages nowadays are anywhere between 5% and 95% commercial advertisements (with little or no 'content')...
It doesn't feel right having to pay to view unexpected, unanticipated, and unsolicited ads. And it doubly doesn't feel right paying for ads that are only there so you aren't supposed to have to pay for something anyway (the ads are already paying for that page to be available/viewed). What if they started charging us for every hour of broadcast TV watched (where commercials are already paying for the broadcast)? Amounts to the same thing, where the guy in the middle is charging both directions for one service.
So, unless there's a way to make ads NOT count against usage statistics and your personal cap, or until random, unanticipated, unsolicited ads cease to exist on web pages, it is probably immoral (if not illegal) to charge someone for being stuck viewing ads all day (however subliminal or glaring/gaudy they may be). | |
|
Rob916
@frontiernet.net
| Frontier crap I tried canceling my Frontier service and they refused to do it without me paying a $450 early termination fee. I spoke to some a-hole "supervisor" named Ed who was the most cocky arrogant sob I've ever talked to. When asked why they think they can charge so much money for an ETF when no one else does he replied "Because we can". When asked if it is company policy to deceive and lie to customers he replied "I don't have to answer that question". These people are unbelievable. | |
|
Talaraine
@tippingpoint.com
| Understand their reasoning and you can develop an argument. The reason they are capping speed has nothing to do with wanting to charge per gigabyte...though if they met little to no resistance they would do just that.
They are seeing sites like joost, netflix, hulu and surfthechannel pop up all over the web and are making the first in a long series of steps that ideally will still allow them to control the content of streaming media. Who would pay 75 dollars a month for cable that I am forced to use a DVR for (also purchased through them in many cases) when I can't control what comes on or when. Why would we pay that money for programs we don't ever watch or even support when we can 'on demand' anything at anytime through the internet?
The cap is only the first step. They know that the internet is the wave of the future for delivery of entertainment, and they will develop their own methods for this same on demand delivery, making sure that if you get content through the internet, they get the revenue from the advertisements and the subscription...and not some third party site from china. This is not rocket science, and it is not an overriding desire on their part to screw the consumer over, though it may sure feel like it. This is competition, plain and simple.
The reason these are the companies in the driver's seat for internet service in the first place is because much of the infrastructure was already in place. The only way you are going to force them to stay with the same model they are currently using is to get them to refocus their efforts where they belong (providing a la carte services through their current cable transmission method). It will need to be such an attractive alternative that people will stop needing the internet for their entertainment needs.
Seeing however, that this will happen on a cold day in hell, there will simply need to be other businesses that perfect internet access through alternative medium. (Wireless or otherwise) | |
| | | |
|
|
Associated Press Discovers Cap Debate